See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: manu
manu: Any changes to agenda before we get started?
padler: One question - what's going on with capabilities document - how are we making progress, or not?
manu: We'll chat about it on the agenda later.
Strategic direction of group email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0039.html
wiki page for strategic direction: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015_Strategy
Manu: covering agenda
... will cover strategic direction produced by Ian
... may also want to talk about getting more votes for the
working group
... we are within shouting distance of most votes for any
working group
... also will discuss industry engagement
... should also at some point talk about standards
implementation foundation
... Ian has taken charter, broken it down into consituent
pieces and rated how we are doing on each of the areas.
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015_Strategy#Industry_Engagement
manu: just to give you an
example... looking at the industry example one... Ian rated
this as a "good"
... referenced examples of how we are engaging with companies
and also have liasons to other standards bodies..
... are there steps we can take to improve to the next level...
for example holding next face to face near an industry
event...
... identity was rated poor across the board..
... please look through the questions and add your own thoughts
to how we can improve..
... any questions on what we are trying to do with this
list?
Adrian: great document, well done Ian
manu: this will wind up shaping much of the agenda for TPAC
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/wpay_wg2015/results
manu: we have 35 respondents...
29 support as is...
... there are 3 formal objections around not being specific
enough with the devliverables..
... we knew this might have happened because we were trying to
provide the WG some level of flexibility with regard to
deliverables...
... we are working at trying to clarify some of the
deliverables...
AdrianHB: Ian has been discussing with those that have objected and has been working to create updates to the charter.... objections appear to be resolvable..
manu: it appears that there is a
strong likelihood that the WG will be chartered..
... we are only a few votes away from most voted upon charter
ever in W3C... this shows great momentum...
... if anyone knows of any organizations who have not voted yet
but that care about Web Payments, please ask them to vote..
manu: Adrian, can you give us an update on the Banking Industry Group?
AdrianHB: Last call was a great
discussion because we Kris and Vincent gave us a nice outline
on how ISO20022 fits and Cyril gave a good outline of some of
the Banking needs that are not yet being addressed..
... There will be a lot of value from a presentation from Kris
and Vincent at TPAC on ISO20022
... Follow up has not been scheduled yet, but Adrian will reach
out to Arie to ask him for an update
manu: Commerce discussion was
also pretty good. David E. led the discussion by providing some
thoughts and engaging merchant groups on topics related to
loyalty cards, discounts, coupons, etc..
... Alibaba will be hosting a Payment Services Provider call
tomorrow at 9AM EST (This is the First PSP call)
... I'm a little concerned about PSP discussion due to a slow
start severeal weeks back.
... Security will still be a big question for the IG, because
not much is happening right now within the IG in that space....
we are heavily dependent on this work... but there is not much
activity there..
ShaneM: Are we spreading ourselves too thin by having too many subgroups?
manu: at this point there are a number of task forces as well as industry calls...
ShaneM: ARIA group has less than this
manu: one of the discussions we
need to have at TPAC is what sub groups/Task Forces we still
need..
... for example, the use cases TF has not been as active now
that the use cases have been fairly stable..
... good point, we will raise this at TPAC.. we need to
understand why we are not having as many participants on the
calls...
Katie: Vacations and work issues for me
manu: is anyone else feeling this?
ShaneM: Happy that we are aware of the issue.
manu: Pat aksed where we are on
the capabilities document...
... I was able to fill out the identity/credential section of
the document and have a good idea of what the rest of the
documnet might need to look like...
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html
Example of a nearly complete section: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#identity-and-credentials-1
manu: challenge is that people
have not been contributing enough content to the documnet or
been able to review.
... now that we have the goals section of the doc, we don't
necessarily need a key concepts section.
pat: +1 to removing Key Concepts for Goals
manu: we should remove
responsibilities from the doc...
... not sure who has the other sections... can we
confirm?
... Adrian, can you look at Accounts/Ownership? David E. is
doing commerce...
AdrianHB: is there a task/action list for this?
manu: it was in the minutes a while ago, but not sure it was formalized..
dezell: first, apologies that my
outbox is stacked up 12 deep..
... sent an email to the group to let them know that I added a
changes to multiple commerce sections to the document..
... wanted to ask for some general thoughts on updates..
... may need to move a few concepts around a bit based on some
of the other changes, but will try to follow the model in
6.2.
... definition of Merchant may be a litle broader than
"Payee"...
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0049.html
dezell: Merchant is anyone
involved in completing the payment process... not necessarily
the payee...
... Please look quickly at the email above.
manu: providing feedback on
commerce goals... list at the bottom is really good for
understanding whether the capabilities meet needs of Commerce
participants.
... not seeing anything on digtial receipts, value chain,
supply chain, etc..
... should this be included in commerce section?
pat: +1
manu: should commerce be split into sub categories.. going into examples of difference between "supply chain" transactions with Manufacturers and "retail commerce" (Ex. Coupons/Loyalty)..
padler: I think as long as we
keep the umbrella category of commerce - breaking them down
into "retail commerce" vs. "industrial commerce (supply
chain)"
... would be a good thing.
... Companies are using a lot of web standards to pay between
companies - B2B - more frictionless - that would help speed a
lot of these services.
dezell: what I have included is
digital marketing incentives (retail commerce)?
... I have a lot more experience with Retail Commerce but not
as familiar with Industrial side..
padler: The flow Floris/UETP was talking about was good... it helps figure out where all this stuff goes together.
dezell: Are you okay w/ "Retail Commerce" and "Supply Chain Commerce"
padler: Yes, sounds good - this
makes sense when you talk about chain of payments -
transactions - broader economic process.
... If those were more interoperable between retail and
industrial side - information flows through POS to where
commerce comes through. This would enable a whole lot of things
to happen.
dezell: Let's be sharp about what we're looking for - in my mind, you're looking for detailed transaction data as opposed to getting best deal for customer at a point of sale.
padler: Necessary information at point of sale to flow through - once you get that deal - make sure information flows though - not have the 3 day lag for information to lag together.
dezell: These are back office systems, right?
padler: Well, these systems should be speaking some sort of open web protocol.
dezell: From an economic point of view - there is a real point here - it's worth drilling down into. Great topic for our face to face.
+1 for asking "Should we be looking at backoffice commercial systems in this IG?" at TPAC
padler: Not asking that we finish before TPAC - good TPAC discussion on where IG goes next - framing this up - how do we affect end-to-end payment flows.
manu: everyone needs to be done with edits to capabilities by end of Sept..
Adrian: Will get as much in for my sections by end next week
manu: please let us know with
enough notice if this is not achievable..
... That's all the time we have today... we will need to
discuss Standards Implementation Foundation on the next
call..
Pat: Thanks everyone for your time... see everyone on Monday..
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: manu Inferring Scribes: manu Present: Pat Manu CyrilV ShaneM Kris AdrianHB Katie dezell(in part) Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0047.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 10 Sep 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/10-wpay-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]